Conan's show won't reflect well in the ratings. The Nielson system uses a very small data base and always seems to skew towards network TV. The sampling size is around .02 percent and for some reason they usually only choose "nuclear families" with certain economic and religious backgrounds. They claim to be changing this however. In the past they said that with such a small sample they wanted to choose people who best represented the majority of viewers.

If Conan is to succeed his network will have to figure out his value in less traditional ways. While ratings are the foundation of that the reason is advertising revenue. If he can convince advertisers that he is worth the money he will be just fine. I think he can do that.

-Marshall-
Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv.I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there,
and if I was there, I was asleep.

mkiker2089 wrote:Conan's show won't reflect well in the ratings. The Nielson system uses a very small data base and always seems to skew towards network TV. The sampling size is around .02 percent and for some reason they usually only choose "nuclear families" with certain economic and religious backgrounds. They claim to be changing this however. In the past they said that with such a small sample they wanted to choose people who best represented the majority of viewers.

If Conan is to succeed his network will have to figure out his value in less traditional ways. While ratings are the foundation of that the reason is advertising revenue. If he can convince advertisers that he is worth the money he will be just fine. I think he can do that.

I remember trying to absorb how the Nielson system worked back in my undergrad days in the 90's... My first reaction was "so, we're including a group of people that don't have the Nielson gizmos and assuming that by multiplying those who are watching the shows with the gizmo would be something like double the viewers of those who do not" (if I recall this definition properly, I vaguely remember the EXACT word-for-word description) regardless, it makes little sense, just take a look at how "Family Guy", which was canned twice by Fox now owns the network..

It's not as though I really need you, if you were here I'd only bleed you..
-jonathen michael stipe

stypee wrote:...just take a look at how "Family Guy", which was canned twice by Fox now owns the network..

That has less to do with how the Nielsens work than with Seth MacFarlane's various contractual agreements with Satan.

Well, that and I suspect Fox has always been misreported by the N system than others due to it's demographics being the total opposite of the Nuclear family. Also the N system requires people to consent to it which turns off a large portion of America. I imagine most people hang up when they get the call.

The Networks are going to have to figure out a way to see who's viewing and who isn't. Digital streaming would actually work but they really hesitate to go there.

-Marshall-
Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv.I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there,
and if I was there, I was asleep.

We can assert that the popularity of Family Guy's sales on DVD'S was a result in it returning to television, which is an obvious example of the power of the digital age. As for it being cancelled a second time and than bought back again, with the continued high ranking in DVD sales, that I just can't figure out...

Comedy Central's programming is basically 12 hours of South Park re-runs coupled with a few stand up specials, Futurama, Roasts of few celebratory anyone cares about (Flavor Flav.. really?) and whatever the hell they can dig up... It feels like South Park and The Daily ShowownComedy Central maybe Tosh which recently got a higher Nielsen rating than The Daily Show..There's a sense of chaos in both broadcast and commercial cable programming, it appears as if the networks have lost control of any type of risk in something that isn't reality based. The single most popular show now owns the network and they milk it in every angle possible.

There are no more risk takers.. If Seinfeld were launched at its pilot season in 2011, it would have probably lasted maybe 6 episodes... Seinfeld was a risk with a HUGE payoff because Turtickof was willing hold now and make the little engine that could a monster and one of the greatest sitcoms of all time.. Now, chances like that never really happen. They don't bother to even try to get a show of any real quality get off the ground, give it maybe a season with only a small following of minions the networks don't notice or care about and if doesn't reach that magic number, it's gone.

Imagine some of the shows of the past 11 years that really had that special something and only needed a little time to launch a fan base.. Now its just numbers and dimes (yes I meant dimes) and formulas of Housewives, shitheads from Jersey and endless reincarnations of Law and Order and NCIS spin-offs.. In retrospect, no matter how much variations on a theme through the YEARS of television's existence, the networks now owe the audience a few bucks for it's endless amounts of recycling.

It's not as though I really need you, if you were here I'd only bleed you..
-jonathen michael stipe

You've apparently never seen Louie. Or if you want to stay on broadcast TV, Community. Both comedies take risks, and are unlike any show on television right now.

I've seen Louie and I love it, haven't scene Community yet, Louie is on F/X, cable, a channel with a bit of balls. Community is on... NBC? Family Guy maybe all crass and bold and offensive and whatever, but the point is, we need more than just two or three shows to get a fighting chance. It doesn't need to offend, it could be a complex series about people who love gardening in a small village where weird things happen (obviously an amazingly stupid idea but we had Twin Peaks and people loved it), whatever, just give us something new, that's really what I'm trying to get at...

It's not as though I really need you, if you were here I'd only bleed you..
-jonathen michael stipe